Rick Santorum Insists That He Has The Right To Force His Religious Views Upon Women (VIDEO)

Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr. December 1, 2013 10:45 pm

In the wake of his massive failure as a movie-maker, Rick Santorum has returned to the political realm to argue that religious rights trump women’s health.

Rick Santorum says corporations should be able to deny women birth control.

During an appearance on CNN’s State Of The Union on Sunday, Santorum said that corporations that are owned by religious employers have the constitutional right to deny their female employees birth control coverage.
Santorum was defending Hobby Lobby in their effort to be exempt from Obamacare’s birth control coverage mandate. The Supreme Court recently made the decision to hear the case, even though it upheld the law last year. According to the former GOP Presidential candidate, since the company’s owners are Christian, they have every right to force their religious views upon women.
But Santorum’s anti-birth control and anti-women views didn’t go unchallenged. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean pointed out that forcing religious views upon employees tramples their rights. He also correctly noted that everyone in the nation has to follow the law because it applies to everyone. In other words, if the law only applied to people of a certain religion, then it would be unconstitutional. But since that’s not the reality, Hobby Lobby has no case.

DEAN: “This is one country, we all have to live by a set of things that are passed in Washington and are agreed to by the court.”
SANTORUM: “The idea that the First Amendment stops after you walk out of church, that it doesn’t have anything to do with how you live the rest of your life, I don’t know very many people of faith that believes that their religion ends with just worship. It ends in how you practice and live that faith. And President Obama is saying, ‘No, once you step outside that church, I get to impose my values on you, your religious values don’t matter anymore, it’s my values that I can impose on you. I don’t think that’s what the First Amendment stands for. And I don’t think that’s what the court will say.”
DEAN: “It can’t enable you to force your religious views on other people.”

Here’s the video via Raw Story.



Rick Santorum is the poster boy for the anti-women crusade of the Republican Party. This is just the latest attack on women by Santorum. Throughout 2012, Santorum mercilessly demonstrated his anti-women reputation. In January of that year, Santorum said that women should be forced to give birth to their rapist’s baby because it’s a gift from God. As everyone should recall, an Indiana Tea Party senate candidate named Richard Mourdock also said that rape is a way in which God gives women gifts. He was ultimately rejected in favor of the Democratic candidate. Not even one month had gone by before Santorum falsely claimed that birth control is cheap and that women should buy their own instead of it being covered by insurance. It’s an interesting comment considering Santorum supports banning birth control outright across the country. How can women purchase their own birth control if it becomes illegal? These are just two of the many things Rick Santorum has said that prove how destructive an card-carrying member of the Christian Right would be if one were to become President. All women should have free access to birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth control is a vital health need that is used by a great majority of women in America. Even 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives. Ironically, the outcry against the Obamacare birth control mandate has been spearheaded by the male leaders of the Catholic Church. There’s a good reason why birth control is now being covered by insurance policies beyond the fact that it’s a medically necessary drug. Prior to Obamacare, women had to cover their own birth control costs, which are expensive. Meanwhile, Viagra (erections) has been covered by insurance companies for years. Why should men have their reproductive medication covered but not women? It’s unfair to deny women the opportunity to protect themselves from getting an unwanted pregnancy while approving boner pills for guys who want to have sex with them. Birth control coverage even has a social effect that conservatives should applaud. By giving women greater and cheaper access to birth control, the number of abortions will drop because the number of unwanted pregnancies will plummet. Studies indicate that when women get free contraception, the abortion rate falls dramatically. Rick Santorum is ridiculously obsessed with women’s bodies. At some point, Rick Santorum and his fellow conservatives are going to have to make this connection. Republicans either want to ban birth control or reduce the number of abortions. They can’t do both. In fact, it’s impossible to do both. Banning abortion won’t stop women from having sex and it certainly won’t stop them from getting an abortion. And banning birth control would only lead to more unwanted pregnancies that lead to increased abortions. Allowing corporate bosses to deny women birth control is wrong and infringes upon the rights of employees. And allowing them to do so could give them the power to deny other treatments they disagree with. Employers should not be able to pick and choose what kind of medical care their employees can have. Conservatives constantly claim that they want to get government out of our private lives. Apparently, they’re totally fine with corporations invading them, and they want to abuse the First Amendment to let them do it.

Three of the Biggest Lies Republicans Tell About Themselves

Three of the Biggest Lies Republicans Tell About Themselves

November 25, 2013 By Allen Clifton  

 

When I talk with Republicans, I often feel like I’m speaking with someone who lives inside of a bubble where the outside world and all of its realities are simply unable to penetrate.  It’s the school teacher who votes Republican despite Republicans stripping teachers unions of collective bargaining power.  It’s the individual who’s soon to rely on Medicare and Social Security, claiming they don’t need the federal government.  The person on welfare who voted for the politician who just voted to cut their benefits.
But one area where Republicans excel at is propaganda.  They’re really good at it.  They’ve successfully convinced millions of people to be absolute hypocrites, vote against their own interests and believe that giving rich people more money benefits the rest of us.
Basically, they’ve convinced people to lie to themselves.
So I decided I would give a quick rundown of three of the bigger lies Republicans perpetuate about themselves (though there are far more than three).
1) They’re fiscally conservative 
This is probably the biggest joke of them all.  It’s amazing to me that this is real platform they actually run on, yet haven’t had a Republican president who’s actually balanced the budget since President Eisenhower in the 1950′s.  Hell, their “conservative hero” Ronald Reagan came close to quadrupling the national debt during his eight years.  How exactly is someone a “beacon for fiscal responsibility” when they almost quadrupled the national debt?
And I know some conservatives will do what they always do and blame Democrats for Reagan running up our national debt.  I love reading the asinine conclusion that the near quadrupling of our debt was the fault of Tip O’Neill, not Reagan.  I hate to break it to these people, but Reagan signed off on every single piece of legislation during his eight years in office that led to the massive growth of our national debt.  Congressional Democrats couldn’t simply enact legislation without Reagan’s approval.
Then again, conservatives who make this argument clearly don’t understand how government works.  They’re also the ones who give all of the credit for our balanced  budget in the 90′s to congressional Republicans.
Then look at George W. Bush.  He took a balanced budget and completely wrecked it.  It took him one year to send us back into deficits after President Clinton gave us a surplus.  And don’t even tell me that our budget surplus should be credited to the Republicans in Congress.  If they were the primary reason why we had a balanced budget, it would have continued after Clinton left the White House, when they were still in charge of Congress — but guess what?  It didn’t.
What Bush did was cut taxes, then started two wars.  That’s like buying an $80,000 sports car just after taking a massive pay cut at work.  He reduced our revenue then increased our spending.  How again is that being “fiscally conservative”?
The only area Republicans point to for this claim of “fiscal responsibility” is their opposition to tax hikes.  But guess what?  Cutting taxes has nothing to do with being smart with money.
Oh, but they’ll cut programs that help the poor and the needy, that’ll balance our budget, right?  But you damn sure better not mention cutting oil subsidies or closing tax loopholes for the rich — Republicans will have no part in eliminating either of those.
The only place Republicans are fiscally conservative is in their minds.
2) Small government 
This is another joke.  I love how the party which actively campaigns for president on the pretense of passing Constitutional Amendments that would define traditional marriage is somehow the party of “small government.”
Or the party that continues to pass laws in Republican-controlled states attacking the right for a woman to have an abortion, requiring ultrasounds or transvaginal probes before an abortion can be performed.  That’s small government? 
Hell, if they had their way there would still be a ban on homosexuals in the military.
The fact is, Republicans love government.  Well, as long as that government is supporting something they want.  The only time they’re advocates for “small government” is when the government forces them to do things like — give people civil rights.
I live in Texas, a highly Republican state, where you can’t even buy liquor on Sunday due to outdated laws passed decades ago.  Hell, there are some counties in Texas where you still can’t buy alcohol at all.  How “small government” of them.  Isn’t Texas supposed to be a beacon for “small government values”?  Right.
The truth is, Republicans love government when they can use it to try to enforce their bigotry and ignorance, but hate government when it prevents them from enforcing their bigotry and ignorance.
3) Pro-life 
Being anti-abortion doesn’t make you “pro-life.”  Just like supporting the right for a woman to have an abortion doesn’t make you “pro-abortion.”
Republicans constantly prove that they don’t give a crap about life the moment it’s out of the womb.  Sure, they’ll use a fetus to stir up anger within people to get votes, but the fact of the matter is once that baby is born — they couldn’t care less.
The GOP has consistently cut funding for programs that help the poor and the needy.  They’ve strongly stood against access to health care for all Americans.  There’s even a push now by many to privatize Medicare and Social Security so that these programs are handed over to greedy corporations that can gamble with the future of millions of Americans.
There are tens of millions of children who will have less to eat this holiday because of the Republican cuts to our nation’s SNAP program.  And if Republicans get their way, tens of billions more will be cut from the program.
In a state like Texas — where millions of its citizens go without health care — Rick Perry refused to expand Medicaid coverage so that millions of Texans could receive health care, some for the very first time.  This is a practice we’ve seen all over the country in many Republican-controlled states.
How “pro-life” of these Republicans to deny access to health care for millions of Americans who desperately need it.
And the sad fact is, Republicans only really “care” about a fetus because it helps them get votes.  Otherwise they wouldn’t oppose — and cut — funding to programs that would help millions of poor children all across the United States.
When Republicans say they’re “pro-life” all they really mean is they’re anti-abortion — that’s it.  To call Republicans “pro-life” is an absolute joke.  Because once that baby is born, they couldn’t care less what happens to it, as long as it votes Republican in 18 years.
Now of course these aren’t the only ways Republicans lie to themselves.  These are just three of the bigger “labels” they give themselves that I find completely absurd.
But I’m sure to any Republican reading this, I’m absolutely wrong.  Sure I am.  Of course, they’ve most likely never voted for a Republican president who’s balanced the budget, they probably support a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage, and you can bet they support massive cuts to welfare programs that feed millions of poor children.
Like I said, it’s like they live in a delusional bubble that reality is simply unable to penetrate.

Leaked: The Republican Obamacare Sabotage ‘Playbook’

Leaked: The Republican Obamacare Sabotage ‘Playbook’

posted by Dylan Hock November 23, 2013 

CNN recently obtained a copy of a House Republican strategy memo released late last month titled, “Because of Obamacare… I lost my insurance.” Referred to as the Republican Obamacare “playbook”, the memo contains samples for everything from talking points, social media, op-eds, videos… you name it, including a “fact” sheet for Republican lawmakers fighting the Affordable Care Act.

First reported by Roll Call, a GOP source responsible for providing the strategy memo to CNN stated that it would be updated as of Thursday.
“The administration now has a serious competence problem.  Healthcare.gov is so much more than a website.  The website should have been the easy part,” a portion of the playbook reads.  The conservative angle present in even that small section should come as no surprise.  Republicans have been quite clear and vocal about their disdain for the Affordable Care Act.
The playbook was drafted by the office of House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers amid a Republican fairytale regarding the stumbled roll-out of the Affordable Care Act.  President Obama noted at a Wall Street Journal event last Tuesday, speaking to some of America’s top CEO’s, “One of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure.”
White House spokesperson Eric Schultz echoed President Obama, stating that the Republican “18 page playbook of partisan attacks is 18 pages longer than their health care plan.”  He went on to say, “There’s not a single word devoted to helping constituents enroll or offering an alternative idea to help Americans gain access to quality, affordable care.”
Democrats plan to continue supporting the Affordable Care Act a spokesperson for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi affirmed.
“While Republicans continue to fixate on sabotaging health reform and root for failure, House Democrats will continue to stand tall in support of the Affordable Care Act, work to strengthen the health reform law as implementation continues, and ensure that millions of uninsured Americans get coverage,” Drew Hammill stated.
Blind party politics is nothing new, but the Republican Obamacare “playbook” demonstrates the new depths of cynicism and partisanship of Republican efforts to sway the American perspective and dialogue.
Be sure to watch for similar Republican practices on every other important issue.  You can bet nothing is done without a playbook at the ready.
CNN reports on GOP playbook for Obamacare sabotage:

These Two Anti-Abortion Protesters Should NOT Have Harassed This Man’s Wife (VIDEO)

Author: Justin Acuff August 1, 2013 10:21 pm

Clinic protestors are some of the lowest forms of right-wing idiocy in the country. Why? Because A), they harass women that aren’t getting an abortion or visiting a clinic for anything to do with one, and B), harass women that are making one of the most difficult decisions in their lives, and are going through nearly unimaginable emotional turmoil. Furthermore, they’re protesting the wrong thing — if they really wanted to help lower abortion rates, they’d help educate young people about safe sex and contraception as well as abstinence as the safest choice, and they’d help mitigate other factors, such as lack of access to proper health care and contraceptives due to poverty. When they harass Aaron Gouveia’s wife, he goes back to confront them — and the video below is the result.
Here’s the video:
 

GOP Conspiracy to Commit Rape

US top court rejects pre-abortion ultrasound case

20 hours ago

 

 

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court refused Tuesday to hear a case concerning pre-abortion ultrasounds for women seeking to terminate their pregnancies in Oklahoma.

By refusing to take up the matter, the top US court let stand a ruling by the state's supreme court that struck down a local law requiring "the performance, display and explanation of a pre-abortion ultrasound."
The state claimed to have a "legitimate interest of reducing the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed."
The law mandated that doctors or certified technicians working with them perform ultrasounds on woman at least an hour before carrying out an abortion.
It required the images to be displayed in such a way that they could be seen by the women in question and mandated a "simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting."
In addition, physicians or certified technicians were required to provide a medical description of the images, which had to include such details, if applicable, of a heart beat and internal organs.

They also had to "obtain a written certification from the woman, prior to the abortion" although the measure stated that "neither the physician nor the pregnant woman shall be subject to any penalty if she refuses to look at the presented ultrasound images."

After examining the matter in closed session three times, the Supreme Court gave no explanation for its refusal to take it up.
Just last week, the court announced it would not review the Oklahoma supreme court's decision to overturn a state law that restricts the use of an abortion pill.
The decision effectively upholds the lower court's ruling that the law was unconstitutional, and will allow doctors in the state to prescribe RU-486, also known as the Mifepristone abortion pill.
It is also expected to say soon whether it will take up a Texas law that could lead to the closure of more than a third of clinics performing abortions in the state.
Despite its landmark "Roe V. Wade" decision in January 1973 legalizing abortion in the United States, the practice has remained a perennial source of controversy and in recent years a growing number of states have passed laws limiting it.
Supreme Court watchers expect the nine-member panel to revisit the issue.
On January 15, it will focus on the right of "pro-life" protesters to demonstrate in front of abortion clinics.
  

What’s the matter with motherhood?

What’s the matter with motherhood? 

 

 

E.J. Dionne Jr.

By E.J. Dionne Jr., Published: November 10

If you’re a conservative strongly opposed to abortion, shouldn’t you want to give all the help you can to women who want to bring their children into the world? In particular, wouldn’t you hope they’d get the proper medical attention during and after their pregnancy?
This would seem a safe assumption, which is why it ought to be astonishing that conservatives are positively obsessed with trashing the Affordable Care Act’s regulation requiring insurance policies to include maternity coverage.

Never mind that we who are lucky enough to have health insurance end up paying to cover conditions we may never suffer ourselves. We all want to avoid cancer, but we don’t begrudge those who do get it when the premiums we pay into our shared insurance pools help them receive care.
Yet critics of Obamacare apparently think there is something particularly odious when a person who might not have a baby pays premiums to assist someone who does. It’s true that men cannot have babies, although it is worth mentioning that they do play a rather important role in their creation. In any event, it is hardly very radical to argue that society is better off when kids are born healthy to healthy moms.
Yet the conservatives’ ire over this issue knows no bounds.
“And so what if a health policy lacks maternity care?” wrote Deroy Murdoch on National Review’s Web site , the italics on that impatient “so what” being his. “Not all women want to bear more children — or any children at all. . . . And how about lesbians who do not want kids, and are highly unlikely to become pregnant accidentally?” It’s touching, actually, to see such concern for lesbians in a conservative publication. Behold the miracles Obamacare already has called forth.
On “Fox News Sunday” this month, host Chris Wallace was very worked up as he pressed Zeke Emanuel, a former health-care adviser to President Obama, over how unfair it is that a single woman with a 24-year-old son would be forced to pay for such coverage. “She’s not going to have any more children,” Wallace said with great certainty. “She’s not going to need maternity services.”
Writing on the FreedomWorks Web site, Julie Borowski declared, unhappily: “Maternity coverage will be mandatory — even for men. . . . Adding coverage for things that some people do not want will only increase insurance costs for everyone .”
Well, not exactly. But you get the drift. Who knew that supporting motherhood was suddenly controversial?
All of which ought to present members of the right-to-life movement with a challenge. In the name of consistency, they need to break with their conservative allies and insist that maternity coverage be included in all health-care plans. Shouldn’t those who want to prevent abortion be in the forefront of making the case that a woman will be far more likely to choose to have her baby if she knows that both she and her child will get regular medical attention?
For too many politicians on the right, what they say about abortion is at odds with what they say about so many other issues. They speak with great concern and compassion for the unborn, and I respect that. You don’t have to support making abortion illegal to think that there are too many of them in the United States.
To their great credit, some right-to-lifers really do follow the logic of their position and support expanded health coverage, food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children feeding program and other measures that help parents after their kids are born. This reflects a consistent ethic.
But many other conservatives would make abortion illegal and leave it at that. Thus we have the spectacle in Texas of right-wing politicians trying to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to obtain an abortion while proudly blocking the state’s participation in the expansion of Medicaid to cover the near-poor. Does it serve the cause of life to keep more than 1.8 million Texans from getting health insurance?
President Obama apologized last week after all the criticisms of what’s happening in the individual insurance market. But where is the outrage over governors and legislators flatly cutting off so many lower-income Americans from access to Medicaid? The Urban Institute estimates that 6 million to 7 million people will be deprived of coverage in states that are refusing to accept the expansion.
If health coverage — yes, including maternity care — isn’t a right-to-life issue, I don’t know what is.

Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Rick Perry Calls New Abortion Ruling ‘A Threat to Men’s Rights’

Rick Perry Calls New Abortion Ruling ‘A Threat to Men’s Rights’ 

Written by Justin Dodd October 29th 2013

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Rick Perry has called a judge’s ruling on the restrictive new abortion law passed last July by the Texas legislature “a threat to men’s rights as keepers of women.”

U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel yesterday assessed two controversial provisions of the law, striking down the requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics, but upholding the restrictions on a physician’s ability to offer nonsurgical abortions unless the mother’s health or life is at risk.

Yeakel’s decision enables dozens of Texas clinics that would have been forced to close under the original law to stay open.

The Texas attorney general’s office had argued that the law protects women and the life of the fetus, but Gov. Perry said in a statement that the law was also intended to “protect the rights of men who want to keep guard over their childbearing partners.”

“We will continue fighting to implement the laws passed by the duly-elected officials of our state, laws that reflect the will and values of Texans. Yeakel’s decision is a threat to men’s rights as keepers of women and their role as family protectors,” read the statement.

Perry argued that one of the reasons Texas is “losing its grip” on pro-life legislation is that “too much emphasis has been placed on women’s rights” and said abortion should “also be looked at as a men’s rights issue.”

“Every man who has had relations with a woman has a right to protect his family, and that means limiting a physician’s ability to impose abortion on would-be fathers.”

Perry even went so far as to claim that “abortion destroys a man’s ability to be a man,” which “could leave some men to turn to homosexuality, because neither way is he going to be able to have a child.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood issued a joint statement declaring the decision a “partial victory,” but also admitted that they’re “no longer clear on exactly which laws we’re fighting for and what they mean.”

Shackled and pregnant: Wis. case challenges 'fetal protection' law

By Daniella Silva, NBC News

When Alicia Beltran was 12 weeks pregnant, she took herself to a health clinic about a mile from her home in Jackson, Wis., for a prenatal checkup. But what started as a routine visit ended with Beltran eventually handcuffed and shackled in government custody – and at the center of a first-of-its-kind federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a state’s fetal protection law.
On July 2, Beltran, 28, met with a physician’s assistant at West Bend Clinic at Saint Joseph’s Hospital in West Bend, Wis., for her prenatal visit. When asked to detail her medical history, Beltran admitted a past struggle with the painkiller Percocet. But that was all behind her, Beltran said: She had been taking Suboxone, a drug used to treat Percocet dependency. Lacking health insurance and unable to afford the medication, Beltran had used an acquaintance’s prescription and self-administered the drug in decreasing doses. She had taken her last dose a few days before her prenatal visit.
According to Beltran, the physician’s assistant recommended she renew her use of Suboxone under a doctor’s supervision. After Beltran declined, she said she was asked to take a drug test, which was negative for all substances except Suboxone.
Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran at home and told her that she needed to continue Suboxone treatment under the care of a physician, said Beltran, who again declined. Two days later, Beltran found police officers at her home, who arrested and handcuffed her.
According to the police report, the officers took Beltran to a hospital, where she underwent a doctor’s exam. Her pregnancy was found to be healthy and normal, her lawyers say. Police then took her to Washington County Jail to await a hearing – hours later, she was led into a courtroom, handcuffed and shackled at the ankles, where a county judge ordered her to spend 90 days in a drug treatment center.
“Alicia had no idea she was giving information to the physician’s assistant that would ultimately be used against her in a court of law,” said Linda Vanden Heuvel of Germantown, Wis., one of Beltran’s attorneys. “She should not have to fear losing her liberty because she was pregnant and she was honest with her doctor.”
At the hearing, her lawyers say, the judge told Beltran that an attorney would not be provided for her at that time but that she could seek counsel for her next hearing in the case. And yet, a lawyer had been appointed to represent her fetus. “It’s wrong that an unborn child gets an attorney but Alicia Beltran, the mother of that unborn child did not,” said Vanden Heuvel.
Emails and phone calls to Family Court Commissioner Dolores Bomrad and her office were not returned. Assistant District Attorney of Washington County Mandy Schepper declined to comment on the case.

Courtesy of Melissa Wanta

Alicia Beltran, who was forced to spend more than
two months in a drug treatment facility despite
her insistence that she was not abusing drugs,
 talks with her attorney, Linda Vanden Heuvel
of Germantown, Wis.

At the center of Beltran’s case is a 1997 Wisconsin law that grants courts authority over the fetus of any pregnant woman who “habitually lacks self-control” with drugs and alcohol “to a severe degree” such that there is “substantial risk” to the unborn child. Beltran’s lawyers argue that she was not using any controlled substances at the time of her arrest.
In a petition filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee -- the first federal challenge of an arrest of a pregnant woman under such a statute – her lawyers claim that Beltran’s constitutional rights were violated in numerous ways. The language of the Wisconsin statute is vague and lacking in medical terminology, they argue, leaving too much room for speculation. Further, they say the statute fails to guarantee due process, as well as violates other rights, including privacy and physical liberty.
In cases like Beltran’s, “the woman loses pretty much every constitutional right we associate with personhood,” said Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women and a co-counsel in Beltran’s case.
Experts say that criminal prosecutions of pregnant women, as well as forced drug or psychiatric treatment, have been on the rise in recent years in cases of suspected substance abuse, especially as some states adopt laws granting rights, or “personhood,” to fetuses.
National Advocates for Pregnant Women released a study this year showing that from 1973-2005, 413 pregnant women in 44 states were arrested or forced into treatment. Since 2005, there were an additional 300 cases. But these statistics are likely a substantial undercount, Paltrow said, since many of the proceedings happen behind closed doors.
As of this year, 17 states consider substance abuse during pregnancy to be child abuse under child-welfare statutes, according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute. Three of those states, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota, allow pregnant women to be forced into mental health or substance abuse treatment facilities.
Other states have applied criminal charges such as delivery of drugs to a minor or fetal homicide under the same circumstances. And at least 38 states have “feticide” laws on the books, which define fetuses as persons in homicide or manslaughter cases. While these laws are often applied to cases involving violence against pregnant women, they have also been used to prosecute expectant mothers accused of killing a viable fetus.Supporters of these laws say they are intended to protect unborn children. “Child abuse is child abuse, whether it’s in the womb or out of it,” said Jennifer Mason, communication director for Personhood USA, a non-profit organization seeking personhood status for fetuses. Advocates of fetal personhood claimed a victory in January when the Alabama Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of unborn children in that state’s child endangerment statute. Some experts argue that prosecuting pregnant women can ultimately put fetuses at risk, especially when healthcare providers and social workers are the ones reporting women to authorities. There is evidence indicating that women who fear criminal charges or other state intervention are less likely to seek medical care or be honest with their doctors, said Kenneth De Ville, a medical humanities professor at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., who published a study on the Wisconsin law. “Prenatal care is really the best thing you can do to enhance fetal health,” he said. “And you’re driving women away from prenatal care.”
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has argued that women who seek prenatal care should not be exposed to criminal or civil penalties and calls for expanded and affordable alcohol and drug treatment services for pregnant women.
Mason said she agrees that women should be given professional treatment before state intervention, but that when there is clear evidence of fetal harm, criminal charges are often appropriate. “It’s a very fine line. The medical professional has to be aware of what puts babies in danger,” she said. “I do not think a pregnant woman’s freedoms should be taken away, but child abuse cases are child abuse cases and have to be treated the same way as a newborn in the home.”
For Beltran, the consequences of her case have hit hard. Her family struggled to visit her regularly during her stint at Casa Clare Women’s Facility in Appleton, Wis., a two-hour drive from her home. After being away from work for an extended period, Beltran lost her job in the food service industry, according to her lawyers. She was released earlier this month, but with the case still open, she is still at risk of being taken into custody or ordered into further treatment, Paltrow said.
Beltran was scheduled for a trial in a Washington County court on Oct. 29. If she is found guilty under the Wisconsin law, the court could order her into counseling, supervision by a social service agency, or mandatory drug treatment, and could terminate her parental rights once her child is born. But the trial has been removed from the court calendar -- county witnesses were unavailable on the given date, and a judge recused himself for being familiar with the witnesses, Beltran’s lawyers said -- and no new date has been set.
“[Beltran’s] happy about this baby and having a child, but she doesn’t know what’s going to happen,” Vanden Heuvel said. She added that in a recent conversation, Beltran, who is due in mid-January, told her, “This is my first pregnancy ever, and I just haven’t been able to enjoy it.”